Finally cutting the bonds that have shackled Americans since the 1960s. Next we’ll take down the Motorcycle Helmet Nazis - feel the wind in your crewcut again!
Not wearing a seatbelt should be completely legal (once you’re over 18). It’s stupid, but it should absolutely be legal.
Since you don’t care about human life, maybe money matters more to you: Seatbelts decrease auto insurance costs.
I absolutely care about human life, and it’s sad and senseless when people kill themselves with stupid choices.
I just respect their humanity enough to not impose my will on theirs, when their decisions don’t cause significant enough externalities for the people around them to justify treating them as less human than I see myself.
Seatbelts decrease auto insurance costs.
And legal penalties for high BMI decreases health insurance costs, which are much, much higher than car insurance costs (as well as preventing far more needless deaths, since you’re such a humanitarian).
Why is freedom of choice valid in the more egregious cost scenario but not less egregious one?
Shitty whataboutism
their decisions don’t cause significant enough externalities for the people around them
I get that this is an onion-derived convo and I see the wishy-washy word there too.
But if I were to swerve and miss a child running into the street and run into your car instead, I will have assumed safety features would protect you when instead I’ve just killed someone not wearing a seatbelt. Humans are seriously squishy.
Absolutely - we make decisions every day on the assumption that the people around us are making smart decisions as well, and that’s not always the case, and other people sometimes suffer negative outcomes as a result of those stupid, but legal, decisions.
And when you’ve come to the point where you’re having to fabricate the kind of incredibly specific scenario you’re proposing to get even a hypothetical externality, you’re probably dealing with a situation that should be left to individual choice.
I’d also be completely fine with immunity to charges of manslaughter against anyone hit while not wearing a seatbelt, or something of that nature (and significantly higher insurance rates too, of course).
I understand the counter-argument that you’d probably suffer increased trauma in this incredibly specific scenario that you’ve concocted, but death is a fact of life, and with how far removed we are in this scenario from the likelihood of direct negative outcomes, I still feel that the agency to make one’s own choices far outweighs any hypothetical marginal social good of legislation.
My wife works in a hospital and receives patients from car crashes. If driving without a seatbelt was legal she would find another job.
Intact she has worked in a country where no one, even kids are required to wear seatbelts, and she doesn’t want to work like that now
Not everyone’s cut out to work in medical care - it’s a tough field.
Her words, you have to be a psychopath not to be affected by the shit you see in the hospital, and you don’t want to be only treated by psychopaths do you?
While true, this is a dumb take reflecting why rules like this are important.
Just to quote that person from another comment in this thread:
I don’t think I’ve had any real life experience color my view on this
This is what it looks like when people are unable to admit they were wrong.
Death is a fact of life, and the existence of it is not a sufficient justification for curtailing freedom of choice.
Especially when the entire purpose of that curtailment is so that bastard cops have more of an opportunity to attest brown people. Y’all are getting played.
You can just say “I was wrong and made a stupid comment,” you know.
You don’t have to double and triple down on literally everything you say.
Try it sometime. It’s rather nice.
Thanks for the advice - as soon as I’m wrong and make a stupid comment, I’ll be sure to.
Not really sure how that’s relevant to the thread though.
I see this topic really affects you, it is clear that real life experiences has colored your view on this, and you deserved to not be harassed. (Good luck with this under this administration)
But the fact remains that seatbeltlaws are in place in many countries, including countries where cops dont harras brown people. So this argument doesn’t hold water. Nixon did infact talk about racial targeting by illegalizing marijuana, not seatbelts
My wife is a hardy woman, who has treated kids in hospices, people with knifes stuck in their brains, women receiving cecarians that didn’t get sedated properly by the anaesthesiologist because their drug use affected how they took the sedation, she regularly treats new amputees, changes bandages of burn victims, washes the asses of elderly, and has to see people where the pavement scraped away half their face. She is 37, and has seen a lot of shit during her career, and what she gets in return is patients that ask why they sent a child in to treat them because she looks like a teenager when she doesn’t wear makeup.
She, and the rest of the tax paying public are very happy that seatbelt laws are strict, I dont want to pay my tax money on the crazy amount of money each road fatality cost (its more than you think), this is both true in countries where you don’t have free health care like yours, as well as the rest of the western world. It’s expensive, both in money, and the toll on the people who will treat you.
If you want to get a little bit of compassion for the people who work in health. Feel free to watch the TV show The Pitt (2025), season one, is set up like every episode is an hour in the shift of the ER. And every 5 minutes my wife says this happened to me, this is realistic, that’s how it actually is, that’s a realistic amount of blood, that happened to a colleague of mine etc
Thanks for the detailed and empathetic response. I’m going to disagree with you again here, but I don’t bear you any ill will for your opinion, especially in light of your wife’s experiences.
I don’t think I’ve had any real life experience color my view on this, thankfully - I’ve always worn my seatbelt and have never been targeted by cops. My strong reaction to this issue (and I’ve had literally all of the conversations currently happening in these comments over and over for years now, on here and on the other website) is due to just how ridiculous and self-contradictory it is for people to actually support seatbelt laws based on the arguments you’re seeing in these comments.
I’m pretty sure the deeper truth here is that people (or most people at least - I don’t think this is true of you, based on your comments here) actually don’t care about the safety and trauma they always bring up in these comment sections, not really - I think they just take it personally for some reason that someone else has the audacity to make stupid decisions (even though they themselves are also frequently making stupid decisions they don’t notice, and which have their own set of externalities - those stupid decisions are fine, of course), and it makes them feel morally superior to impinge on those individuals’ right to make their own choices freely, especially when they have the easy refuge of flimsy “safety” arguments to retreat to. They’re moral busybodies, and it’s infuriating.
And pointing to nanny state European countries infamous for “protecting” their citizens from the audacity of making their own decisions doesn’t settle the argument. Two countries can do the same thing for very different reasons (and if you think European cops defend the working class and not capital I have a bridge to sell you - each of those countries’ cops have their own socially acceptable groups to harass instead).
I’m also a part of the tax-paying public, and I’m not happy that seatbelt laws are strict. You spend far more of your tax money on the crazy number of people who need early, intensive medical care due to dozens of different kinds of unhealthy life choices. In fact, I’d argue that the one-time costs of car crash deaths stemming from loosening seatbelt laws is far cheaper than the years or decades of intensive, expensive treatment for preventable conditions arising from other knowingly stupid choices, and yet, once again, for some reason it’s stupid choices regarding seatbelts of all things where people come out of the woodwork to be worried about the toll on people and the economy.
Or to act worried so they can feel morally justified (literally) policing the actions of others, at least.
Again, thank you for your comment and your perspective.
You spend far more of your tax money on the crazy number of people who need early, intensive medical care due to dozens of different kinds of unhealthy life choices. In fact, I’d argue that the one-time costs of car crash deaths stemming from loosening seatbelt laws is far cheaper than the years or decades of intensive, expensive treatment for pre…
You argument is literally whataboutism.
I agree. It is VERY stupid to not wear one, but seatbelt laws in the US were a test of control, not safety.
Seatbelts are a constitutional violation on personal freedom. Argue all you want, but they are.
If you think about it, all regulations stemming from the DoT are.
They’re infringing on my right to drive with no head or taillights.
They’re infringing on my right to ignore traffic signs.
They’re infringing on my right to drive on the left side of the road.
They’re infringing on my right to drive a monster truck on the highway.
In a truly free country, I could drive my truck with 66" tires down the so-called “wrong” side of the road in the dead of night with no lights whatsoever. Sure, I might injure or kill someone, but I also might not, and stopping me from doing so is clearly stopping me from my pursuit of happiness.
Tail lights and the like are required for the safety of others. Seatbelts are basically the government being your mom and making you wear a winter coat because she worries.
The same goes for regulations requiring air bags, crumple zones, tempered glass windows, and other safety features designed to protect the occupants of a vehicle. If seatbelts are government overreach, then so are these. It’s my God-given right to die as violently as possible in an easily-preventable accident.
I’m not the person you responded to here, but the difference is that all of those things are very likely to cause negative externalities to other people, while, as I’ve pretty definitively shown in this thread, that’s not at all the case with the negative outcomes of not wearing seatbelts, which are almost entirely limited to the person making the decision.
The United States has some very rural areas where you can be the only vehicle on the road for miles. “Stupid” driving is safer for other people there than “smart” driving is in more populated areas.
But if you’re not in favor of totally deregulating public roads in areas like that, then let’s look at just the light situation.
Having a light out is much easier to notice than whether or not someone is wearing a seatbelt, and is also used by law enforcement to pull people over, meet quotas, etc.
If I don’t have headlights, but your taillights work, I can still see your vehicle in front of me and avoid a collision. Likewise, if I don’t have taillights, but your headlights work, either you should see my vehicle in front of you and avoid a collision, or you shouldn’t be driving at all if you can’t tell you’re getting closer to my vehicle.
In both situations, the lights on your car are sufficient to keep you safe if I choose to be “stupid” and drive without lights.
I mean, then so is not allowing people to randomly test nukes on their own property.
As is every law against suicide or selling clearly harmful chemicals.
The penalty is a ticket, and rarely enforced, get over your shit.
which part of the constitution was the seatbelt law supposed to be violating again?
See, this is what happens when they stop teaching civics in school. Article VIII § 2, “in the event that some means of transportation referred to as an automobile is invented, Congress shall enact no laws that infringe on the inalienable right of all men to launch themselves through the windshield of said automobiles.”
At least read the constitution if you’re gonna make claims like this
thats my bad. good catch.
<3
This is like the 3rd or 4th dumb take I’ve seen come out of lemm.ee users within the past few hours.
Yall must be migrating from the highly intellectual youtube community section.
At least the other people complaining and downvoting here are bringing actual arguments to the table and engaging in productive dialogue.
What a useless comment.
What a useless comment.
Whoosh
Clearly from a country without socialized healthcare…
Yes, because that’s the dangerous activity that causes the most additional load.
What’s the average BMI in your country with socialized healthcare? What are your criteria for which dangerous activities we should and should not be allowed to engage in?
I’d be for it if they were the only ones who get affected in a crash. What about innocent people who might get hurt from a 90kg projectile? Or the people who have to mop up the mess?
a) the chance is that happening is so low as to be completely irrelevant. Note that you even used “might” when describing this incredibly unlikely event.
b) that’s part of the job, just like gore and dead bodies are part of the job for doctors. Again, this should be discounted entirely, especially when making choices that restrict people’s freedom.
that’s part of the job
Mopping floors is part of someone’s job as well. That doesn’t give you the right to throw garbage anywhere you want.
And yet people do this as a result of unintentional accidents (like car accidents) all the time, but you don’t seem to be up in arms about the scattered garbage from these other accidents.
Or about the other garbage that may be thrown from a car accident specifically, for that matter.
Or about the gore that comes from other fatal accidents that were preventable. It’s always just seatbelts with you people for some reason.
unintentional accidents
Unintentional.
Refusing to take basic safety precautions is not unintentional.
I thought this was strictly about the problems with cleanup? Why are you suddenly pivoting to “safety”? Could it be that this was all just a cover for your need to police other people’s choices and behavior?
If requiring motorists to take basic safety precautions to avoid exposing other people to unnecessary gore and trauma is policing “other people’s choices” then yes, that is exactly what I want to do, I want to police stupid choices that hurt other people.
No. It also puts the other party’s life (in a crash) in danger.
Nope, it doesn’t.
The chances of that happening are so astronomically low as to be practically impossible, and it doesn’t hold a candle to the violation of personal liberty.
personal liberty includes children’s right to have a parent alive and well for as long as possible even if they’re too stupid to take measures against risk of an accident.
all laws are limits on personal liberty. that alone isn’t a good argument against any law.
also if you’re gonna say the risk of something is astronomically low you have to back it up. and even then it’s not a good argument.
Infantilize adults for the sake of the children, got it.
Probably the worst take I’ve seen in this thread, and that’s saying something.
why, did you not see yours?
what do you even mean by infantilize? if you’re not doing the most basic, demonstrably beneficial way to save more lives including yours and others, forcing you to do it is not infantilizing an adult, it’s appropriately forcing someone who can’t be an adult to act like one.
but this is just to meet you at your inane level. in reality this kind of law is very effective at making more mindful of their safety, even if idiots among them do it begrudgingly. if not for laws like this pretty much no one would fasten their seatbelt or wear a helmet on a bike, not because they’re irresponsible but because it wouldn’t occur to them or they wouldn’t realize the importance and severity of such measures.
the violation of personal liberty.
You live in civilization – that’s a choice you made. You adhere to a social contract. Your liberty after a certain point takes a back seat. This shouldn’t need explaining.
And yet here I am having to needlessly explain that that’s only necessary when the chance of those externalities is severe enough to warrant this consideration.
As I’ve shown in this thread, that’s not the case, and the dangers you’re all supposedly worried about aren’t actually real dangers.
But you’ve all confused shouldn’t with can’t (whether intentionally or otherwise), and your moral superiority complexes over people having the audacity to make stupid decisions won’t let you acknowledge that.
If you are a passenger sitting behind someone and you don’t use your seatbelt you crush the person in front of you in case of a frontal colision, and if you are sitting next to someone and get hit from the side you can break both your skulls on each other
Ah, there’s the “what about the other passengers in the car” argument I’ve been waiting for.
The problem is that all other objects become deadly internal projectiles in the case of an accident as well. If we really cared that much about the danger from projectiles, then by law, cars should come with multiple tie-downs all over the interior of the vehicle, and it should be illegal to have an object in the car over five pounds not firmly secured by them.
The reason, of course, that that isn’t mandated is the same as the answer to all of the other questions in this thread: in the end it’s really just about policing people’s behavior and choices (and securing an additional revenue stream for cops, as well as a handy excuse to pull people over).
Not everything can become a deadly projectile lmao, that’s not how basic physics works, a 60+Kg person does become a deadly projectile at a certain speed
That’s a laptop, it can have sharp, hard edges and can be quite heavy, you can literally die from falling over on the street, it also doesn’t prove that “everything” can become a deadly projectile
??? Astronomically low? Even a crash at 10 to 20 Km/h can turn you into a meat projectile, dumbass
Then it should be suuuper easy to find evidence of a fatality due to a human projectile from a car accident if this is such a huge concern.
I’ll wait. Don’t worry, I’m patient.
Google it meathead Being ejected from a car in a crash significantly increases the risk of fatal injuries, with statistics indicating that around 81% of people ejected from vehicles in accidents are killed, according to Carpey Law. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reports that occupants ejected from a vehicle are three times more likely to suffer fatal injuries compared to those who remain restrained, according to Newsome Melton. Seat belts are the most effective safety equipment in preventing vehicle ejections.
I’m not going to gore websites for your pleasure, but liveleaks used to be a gold mine for you apparently
This is a proven fact. If you want to ve a complete moron, then you’re no better than a flat earther or an antivaxxer, in which case fuck you and I’m not going to waste my time on you
So… still no evidence whatsoever for that “proven fact”, then, eh?
The difference is that flat earthers are presented with evidence that they’re ignoring, but nobody has presented any evidence in this thread for me to ignore, even though this is supposedly such a huge problem.
I bet you weigh more than a laptop. Even if I wasn’t killed by you, if I was hurt more because of you I would be pissed.
Sounds like we should mandate strapping down all objects in the car then, right? Since you’re arguing we mandate that for people?
By law, cars should come with multiple tie-downs all over the interior of the vehicle, and it should be illegal to have an object in the car over five pounds not secured by them. Right? Because you’re so concerned about this one case you were able to find that wasn’t even a person?
Jesus, you’re a fucking moron.
I must say, this is a very stupid hill to die on.
While at it, we should legalize drunk driving. Drunk driving got a bad name in the past because irresponsible drunk drivers were drinking behind the wheel and purposefully running people over. My father drove drunk for 30 years and he was only in 7 car accidents. It’s non sense.
I know this is the onion but I’m honestly glad for companies like Subaru building in a way to disable the seatbelt chime. When I’m slow rolling a rocky dirt road at 10mph with no one else on it, I feel dumb wearing a seatbelt. Or having the windows up for that matter.
How are you so insecure that a seatbelt makes you feel dumb?
It’s not about being insecure. I’m just old enough to remember riding in old trucks and cars that didn’t even have seatbelts. They make sense for most situations and I wear my seatbelt, but there are sometimes situations where it just feels like unnecessary compliance.
Praise be to Subaru for saving you from such a cruel fate. No one should have to feel dumb wearing a seatbelt!
Coincidentally, anyone feeling dumb for wearing a seatbelt most probably IS dumb (but not for wearing a seatbelt).
!remindme 1 year
@remindme@mstdn.social is the bot you’re looking for.
